A. Article 578(1) and (2) of the Civil Act

(b) In case where the successful bidder fails to acquire the ownership of the auction real estate because the notarial deed of promissory note bearing the name of debt in the name of compulsory execution is forged, whether the successful bidder can obtain the liability for warranty under Article 578 (2) of the Civil Act (negative)

A. Article 578(1) and (2) of the Civil Act provides that when the successful bidder is unable to fully acquire the property right which is the object of the successful bid due to defects in the auction which is a single type of sale, the successful bidder shall be liable to compensate the debtor of the auction at the seller's location or the creditor to compensate the successful bidder for the damages corresponding to the sale. The warranty liability is recognized in cases of sale where the auction procedure is effective, but the successful bidder is unable to acquire the complete ownership or lose it due to defects such as all or part of the right which is the object of the auction, which belongs to another person. In cases of the auction procedure itself null and void, there is no room to recognize the debtor of the auction

B. Where a successful bidder pays the proceeds by winning a real estate through a compulsory auction and completes the registration of ownership transfer in the future, but thereafter, where the judgment ordering the cancellation of ownership transfer registration becomes final and conclusive on the ground that the above compulsory execution is null and void, and thus the successful bidder cannot acquire the ownership of the auction real estate due to the final and conclusive judgment ordering the cancellation of ownership transfer registration, the successful bidder can only claim the return of the amount he received out of the proceeds of auction to the creditor in accordance with the general unjust enrichment doctrine, and the warranty liability under Article 578(2) of the Civil Act

Article 578 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na54096 delivered on May 15, 1991

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal.

In filing an application for compulsory auction of this case on the real estate owned by the non-party as an executor creditor, the court below's decision rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the non-party's portion was known to be forged or he was not aware of the fact that the non-party's portion was negligence due to negligence due to negligence due to negligence due to negligence due to negligence even though the non-party's name was known among the certificate of promissory notes whose name was the debt holder, is just and acceptable in light of the evidence relation as stated by the court below, and there

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

Article 578(1) and (2) of the Civil Code provides that when the successful bidder is unable to fully acquire the property right which is the object of the successful bid due to the defect in the item in the auction which is a type of sale, the successful bidder shall be liable to compensate the debtor of the auction at the location of the seller or the creditor, corresponding to the case of sale, for the protection of the successful bidder. The warranty liability is recognized in cases of sale where the auction procedure is effective, but the successful bidder is unable to acquire the complete ownership or lose it due to the defect that belongs to another person, such as all or part of the right which is the object of the auction, and where the auction procedure itself becomes null and void, it shall be concluded that there is no room to recognize the debtor

Therefore, in this case where the plaintiff paid the price by winning the real estate through the procedure for compulsory auction and completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the future, but the judgment ordering cancellation of transfer of ownership is null and void because the certificate of promissory note, which became a title of debt of the above compulsory execution, becomes final and conclusive, and thus the plaintiff could not acquire ownership of the real estate for auction purpose, the plaintiff can only file a claim for return of the amount he received out of the auction proceeds with the defendant, who is the creditor of auction, in accordance with the principle of general unjust enrichment. Since the plaintiff cannot be held liable for warranty liability under Article 578(2) of the Civil Act, the judgment below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding

3. We examine the third ground for appeal.

The theory of lawsuit to the effect that there is an error of law in violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete hearing in the original adjudication as to the debtor's insolvency, which is a prerequisite for the debtor's warranty liability under Article 578 (2) of the Civil Code, is not established under the above legal principles. Thus, even if the claim is correct in this case, there is no evidence to acknowledge the debtor's insolvency, and thus, it cannot be affected by the judgment of the court below that rejected it.

4. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)